The Lamentations of “Fun Single Girl” in the City

I had another post planned for today, however after seeing this article show up on my Twitter feed, I couldn’t help but comment on it. As it demonstrates many of the various concepts I use in my writing for most of the articles on this blog. Entitlement, solipsism, hypergamy, woman logic, it’s all there on full display for the world to see. The author outlines her thesis on why being a “fun single girl” ready to get off the carousel, is not fun anymore, because men are not lining up to buy her drinks, dinners and spend hours convincing her why she should choose him. In her own words:

If you’re a single woman, you probably envisioned your twenties as a roaring social scene full of expensive dinners and lavish nights out. You probably thought you’d have a boyfriend, or at least a few dates a week.

Which is woman speak for being in the most extreme case high demand, and limited supply, thus being able to command impressive prices for yourself, in the form of bartering expensive dinners and lavish nights out in exchange for your company. She belabors the situation a “fun, single girl” in the big city is now living in, where:

They’ll make eye contact with you in the bar, but never come over. They’ll get your number, but never call. They’ll offer to buy you a drink, but never pay.

They’ll say a girl is hot, but never hit on her. They’ll text you for a week, but never ask you out. They’ll do absolutely everything but make a move.

This is a great case to exhibit expectations and reality, where one markets and attempts to sell a product, get some nibblers bit nobody that really bites. One could question why this situation is without a doubt replaying itself in cities all across the Western world, as strings of fresh out of college women finally get to enter the amusement park, and find that they are unable to get on any rides.

Perhaps this is a sign of the times, that after 30+ years of “all men are bastards“, “boys are stupid throw rocks at them“, they are finally checking out. Alternatively, when the man reaches his mid-twenties, he’ll have spent half his life being medicated for being “disorderly” or “rambunctious” at school. Perhaps he attended University and thus was made to partake in a consent class where it was made clear to him that he needs consent to talk to a woman, and he’s just respecting her space. This is somewhat like the girl who had hitting on a woman in public being made hate crime, who then laments that men never hit on her on the street anymore. [2]

Who Ruins it For “Fun, Single Girl?”

The author takes quite some time describing the phenomenon of modern man, and what she sees as being their problem. Ranging from the guy who chase a woman down for her phone number, yet never approaches her, to the one who knows exactly what he wants, yet not at all.

We’re dealing with a new breed of men here and it’s not the kind we grew up dreaming about. It’s the want-what-I-want-but-don’t-know-how-to-get-it type; it’s the sweet and cuddly mama’s boys who grow up terrified of making the first move; it’s the guys who have so much to say but don’t know how to say it.

In many ways this sums up much of the manosphere content, men who know what they want but do not know how to get it. Men who lack game, have not invested in their own value, or who just have no idea how the sexual market place works. I could actually buy that this may be an issue for women, the guy who looks at them across the bar for the whole evening without ever attempting to come over and talk to them. Which is why it is somewhat strange that she writes in her next paragraph:

Because they don’t know what they want, they end up chasing nothing. It’s the dilemma of the overcrowded buffet. There are too many options so they choose an empty plate… or something they don’t even like to begin with.

Which is a bit strange, because on one hand they know what they want, but do not know how to obtain it, yet on the other hand they have no idea what they want. This is a phenomenon known as “Kettle Logic” wherein a person makes two arguments, that contradict each other to prove the same point.How can they know what they want, and not know what they want? This is more likely than not, a case of the men she wants not wanting her, and the men she does not want, wanting her. Alternatively, the alphas/high provider betas she desire, being standoffish because her SMV is lower than what they want for a long term relationship.

She continues her description by outlining the very dilemma faced by many “fun single girls” all over our western world, lamenting the lost masculinity of men of prior generations.

This leaves women making all the moves. We must tell them what they want if we’re to get anywhere close to the goals we had for ourselves. But it will never be as we fully imagined because, in our dreams, men weren’t timid or scared little boys; in our dreams, men are the ones with the balls to ask us out.

Perhaps, my main reason for thinking this is a fantastic piece of writing is that the three quotes here demonstrate that the modern man who is raised by his mother to respect women, be sweet, sensitive and cuddly, is a man who lacks something that is fundamentally male. The sub-communication being that the man she grew up with in her dreams, is not the man who she would raise if she was a mother to a son.

It is interesting that at no point during her article, she stops to think about the man in question, is she the woman he dreamed of, the feminine and nurturing wife that he can see raising his children, or is she the “strong, independent woman” he can see leaving him and their children behind to go on an “Eat, Pray, Love” tour in 4 – 6 years?

The descriptions are very apt in that they describe the phenomenon of the “Modern Man” and how it is different from more traditional masculinity. You cannot have aggressive, “ballsy” men, when men are being raised by women, to be more like women. When you domesticate a wolf, it is not really a wolf anymore, but a dog. In the solipsistic “men are damaged women” perspective, the attempt to change the masculine to become more feminine, one drives out the masculine qualities one appreciates and those which one does not.

What is to Blame?

The first piece of blame is placed squarely on men being afraid of women with half a brain. They are scared to approach her because she is a strong, independent woman with a brain, which they wouldn’t know unless they approached her in the first place to find out.

They’ll never admit it, but you scare the hell out of them. After years of social conditioning, we’ve been duped into thinking that men are the strong ones; that they are the leaders, the protectors and the fighters; that they are the ones that see what they want and go after it.

This statement in and of itself demonstrates a woman’s ability to tolerate massive levels of cognitive dissonance in the name of hypergamy. Society communicates to men that they are not be the aggressive “brutes” of previous times, they need to be the sensitive Beta male who patiently waits while his unicorn engages in the lurid affairs of her party years, until she is ready to settle down. Despite social conditioning of men to become the “sweet and cuddly mama’s boys” it does not affect women’s arousal cues. She desires the very man who has been cast as the villain since the early 90s.

The author forms a few other theses for what is wrong with the modern man, starting with their mothers raising them wrong, but not all mothers, most mothers did a great job, but those few:

Why are men like this? Well, for years they’ve been raised by their mamas, the women who told them they were the best thing God created on this earth. For years, they’ve been given everything on a silver platter — up until the end of college when they were picking up women who just threw up their jungle juice.

Of course, some mothers have raised great men. This isn’t to discredit the generation of mothers before us who raised the myriad of young men we’re dealing with today. But for the select few who didn’t teach them how to properly court a woman, well, shame on you.

Shame on you for not teaching them how to properly approach a woman. Shame on you for giving them the idea that women must go to them. Shame on you for making them believe all they had to do was stand at a bar and wait for a girl to appear on their arm.

Personally, I wouldn’t so much blame mothers directly for raising their young men wrong, I would point to the lack of strong male role models in the lives of young men. The men who are in their early to late twenties these days, were born between 1986 and 1996, during the rise and veneration of the single mother, who doesn’t need no man to raise her kids. Perhaps most of all, mothers raising boys raise them wrong and they raise them to be focused on the needs of the female, rather than their own.

One must remember that the cardinal hormone at play in men is testosterone, which affects boldness, risk tolerance, and many other factors at play in the meat market. As male testosterone levels in generally decline [3] that risk seeking, bold behavior that women love, will perhaps become much rarer than at present. This hormone does have some negative sides when viewed through the current western social contract. The same hormone that makes the man “fun single girl” wants, also makes him a host to “toxic masculinity” wanting one, without the other is impossible.

Her next thesis is one related to perceived abundance of supply:

In the society in which we live today, with Gigi Hadid and Miranda Kerr’s Instagrams readily accessible, women have got a lot to compete with. Fortunately, we’re competing with women these men will never have a shot with. Unfortunately, these men don’t seem to know this.

The argument here is that men would rather masturbate to the instagram profiles of celebrity women, than attempt to ask out a woman that they actually have a shot with. The underlying communication being that men are overvaluing themselves in the sexual market place. While having more access to these media, does perhaps communicate to men what the best options are, however this is no different than “traditional man” having a Sports Illustrated or Playboy magazine. Especially not in a time where any woman can cultivate her own following of orbiters that will validate and encourage her at the drop of a button through the same social media channels.

Perhaps though, there is a supply-demand issue her, in that in a world where women are rapidly devaluing themselves and the various media channels are communicating the “Hook Up Culture” supported by apps such as Tinder, the ability of people to interact in a “traditional” manner is impeded somewhat. A combination of easily available sex with little commitment throughout the college years, for pretty much all women, and the top 10 – 15% of men, would perhaps bias the Alpha males to avoid traditional avenues as they are experiencing a cornucopia of easily available sex through non-traditional avenues.

The author touches on this herself:

Men also know that if they don’t get up the nerve to ask you out, all they have to do is swipe right on Tinder to skip the date and get right to the good stuff.

Her final thesis of why men are ruining the life of “Fun, Single Girl” is that men just refuse to “man up and marry those sluts” and instead elect to live a lifestyle of prolonged adolescence. One filled with hobbies, hookups and dedicating their lives to their own pleasures. Her final conclusion in the story is:

To add insult to the few dates you have yet to be asked on, men are also getting married less than ever before. According to a study by Pew Research Center, only 26 percent of Generation-Y is married. Compared to the 48 percent of our parents at this age, there’s no denying that men just don’t have their sh*t together.

Research on marriage ages 18 – 32 by Pew Research [4]

The entitlement in this conclusion is quite interesting. I looked at the statistic cited in her post, that details the decline of marriage by age 18 – 32 by each generation. The statistics seem to indicate that marriage among people 18 – 32 has been in general decline since the “Silent Generation” until the Millennials.

As you can see from the graphic, 65% of the Silent Generation were married between the ages of 18 – 32, this rate was 17% lower among the boomers, of whom only 48% were married. This is again 12% higher than Generation X of whom only 36% were married by age 18 – 32. Finally, the decline from generation X to millennial is 10%, from 36% who were married among Gen-X to only 26% among millennials.

Some of this can be explained by increasingly longer educational paths. Among the men of the Silent generation and Boomers, many would have entered the workforce right after high school, to a booming economy where they could afford housing, and would have had a steady job and little to no debt. Millennials and Gen X on the other hand, attended college in increasing numbers, and leave college saddled by debt. The focus among the “strong, independent women” of the Gen-X and Millennial generations also suffer from “Sandbergism” where they to a larger degree do not desire to settle down until they reach their epiphany phase.

If one reviews the ages at first marriage from 1890 until 2010 [5] one can see that the silent generation born between 1925 – 1945, as the children of the greatest generation, who would have gotten married between ca. 1945 and 1965, the average age range for men was 22.8 (1950s) to 24.3 (1940s). The average age of first marriage for women of the same generation was 20.3 (1950s and 1960s) and 21.5 (1940s).

The boomer generation, born 1946 – 1964, and thus of marriage age 1966 – 1996, the age range for men at first marriage was 22.8 – 24.8, for women 20.4 – 22. Gen-X, born between 1965 and 1985, and thus of marriage age between 1985 and 2005, the men had a median age at first marriage of 24.7 – 26.7, and the women between 22 (1980s) to 25.5 (2005). In 2010, the average age at first marriage was 28.2 for men and 26.1 for women. If one compares Gen-X to the boomers, men on average got married at 23.8 for boomers and at 25.7 for Gen-X, a difference of about 2 years. The women of the same generations got married at about 21, whereas gen X women at 24. So, women are actually the ones who have the greatest difference in age at first marriage.

Summary and Conclusions

I’ve coined a concept that I refer to as “Female Dichotomy” which represents a concept where females are unwilling to make sexual strategic compromises. If they marry an Alpha, they will work to turn him into a beta, if they marry a beta they will constantly pressure him until he blows up so they can feel excitement. It is a situation in which, the grass on the other side is always greener. A woman who bears the male offspring of an alpha male, will attempt to raise him to embody the qualities her alpha partner lacked. In a relationship with a woman, the traits her partner lacks will always be magnified in importance, and the traits that her partner has will always be minimized.

The article that prompted this post is an interesting one from this perspective. It demonstrates the epiphany angst that many women suffer as the creeping realization that they have been sold by feminists and society at large, a promise which is untrue. That they can optimize their hypergamy and have the best of both worlds. She can have her parade of alphas with whom she experiences every emotional high and low and every depraved act she can imagine, and she can have her dutiful beta, ready to drive the crashed Volvo off the lot at a Ferrari price. However, regardless of her experiences and desires, she will have the “grass is greener” perspective, where she misses the traits her man does not have, but does not value those which he has.

The message communicated to women is that they can have it all, career, family, exiting alphas and dutiful betas, never having to make choices between mutually exclusive options, the life of a woman is never zero-sum or binary, it is a buffet of options, of which she may sample at her leisure. She can go to college, have her education, a career, then decide in her late twenties to early 30s and a man will be waiting for her, ready to be the husband she always wanted. When this proves itself to be a fantasy, there is no other option than to blame the men, for women always import rights and export accountability.

She communicates her frustration in that the “modern man” that has been the social ideal for the last 2 – 3 decades, is not the man who makes her tingle. Unintentionally, she presents the female variant on the “Madonna-Whore” dichotomy, The “Stable – Rebel“, which consists of the optimal male configuration, an alpha with just enough beta to optimize her sexual strategy without feeling like she lost out by settling down.

A note:

I recently launched a Patreon page where I will be posting additional content every month for those who support me and I will do a Google Hangout for the highest tier Patrons (limited to 10 people).

I’ve also had some requests for consults, which I’ve declined up until now, but due to demand I’ve chosen to open up for doing some consults on request. For details please check out my Consulting and Patreon Page

Post navigation

7 comments on “The Lamentations of “Fun Single Girl” in the City”

Kind of Sad. Truth of why men don’t want these woman is that almost all these women are entitled bitches. Most are hyper masculinized which no man is attracted to. Very few women in our society are feminine.

The article displays the usual solipsism that is associated with women. Also it is likely set in New York where there is an actual surplus of women.
Most men don’t swim in pussy – yes – their Game sucks ever more, but they don’t wait for the super-princess-model. She thinks that way because she fucks mostly the top 20% who in NYC do swim somewhat in pussy. The other 80% don’t and have trouble scoring. But she does not care about them.

It is mostly women who wait for the biggest deal out there and cannot decide to settle down until their looks start to wane and wither and the party grinds to a screeching halt. The hypergamy chairs does not work well in NYC or anywhere for that matter.

Also – no mother ever tells a man how to deal with women or date – EVER! Their advice even when given is anti-Game. Most fathers are also indoctrinated and know nothing. The few Alpha men don’t have it mentally prepared as Red Pill men, so their advice is also of little use. The Red PIll Alpha father with Game only can teach his boy how to both seduce a woman and also be solid boyfriend and husband if he wants to. But how many men are Game-aware and have re-discovered their Alpha-Sigma state?

Most of those will rather become Players and swim in the pool of libertarian pussy until they get tired of it. And even if they get tired of it they will rather pick a more conservative submisse girl who did not ride the carousel – see examples of Roosh or others like him (I can think of 3 ex-pro-PUAs who settled down with a worthy woman in their 30s or 40s).

So even that ex-Player Alpha with Game is of no use to the careerist empowered woman because he does not want them.

The solipsism is one thing, the marked sense of entitlement combined with heavy blame shifting is another issue.

I wrote the Principal and the Agent article under gendernomics, also shared under “Do not listen to your mother” for the exact reasons you outline. Mothers fail to raise boys, and even natural alphas are often steeped in blue pill conditioning. The woman in this article is attempting to rationalize why she is a catch, despite nobody fishing for her.

[…] the recent idea that everyone needs to first have their college experience and then their “fun, single girl” years. This leads to many women pushing off having children until their early 30s, at which […]